Parents fear kids will be on sex list

Comments

Being realistic, if an adult did what these children did, then prison time would
be involved. Child pornography is child pornography, and the age of the
producers, distributors, and/or connoisseurs does not matter -- for these
children to end up on the sex offender registry would be justice served at least
to a minor extent. Who cares that they will be stigmatized for at least ten
years, thousands of offenders on the list already are being stigmatized, some
for doing less than producing, distributing, and/or perusing child porn.

I find it amazing how people are great judges of someone not related to
them, and can support them being stigmatized with the registry, yet when it's
one of their own, a family member, the story changes. The law is what these
people made it, them and their children should not be above nor outside of
it.

It will cost a lot less taxpayer money to simply charge theses
kids with their child porn crimes and register them, than the lawsuits to follow
the special treatment of these kids.

Or, we could just change the
laws reasonable as they should have been in the first place.

Re: Rika

April 7, 2008 10:26 a.m.

The Utah Supreme court should not decide whether the law should cover this form
of deviance. However, they can decide that the registry is outside of the
constitutional support, if a citizen has done all to comply with the courts,
paid their price to society, has satisfied all of the terms of probation.

At that point all citizens have constitutional rights that still need to
be protected. Police records will always remain, jail times can be extended and
Court Ordered Therapy can become more comprehensive, even probation can be
extended when appropriate.

Individuals who are dangerous can still be
monitored and can have specific limitations imposed by the courts.

The registry has many individuals who are not a threat to the community, they
have completed their therapy, they have counseled with their religious leaders,
they have paid the asking price and have even sought forgiveness from all who
would listen. Judges, Prosecutors, Therapists, Probation Officers are unanimous
in stating that they are no longer a threat to the community.

The
current law needs to be changed.

Rika

April 6, 2008 8:18 a.m.

"it is not up to the Utah Supreme Court to decide whether the law should cover
this form of deviance. Rather, that is the province of the people, through the
legislature. And that decision has been made."

Toss the Constitution!
Who needs those pesky checks and balances when we can have pure majority rule?
Of course, it's not really majority rule because the elected legislature could
decide they've been elected for life terms and the courts wouldn't be able to
step into that "province."

As for kids on the registry, it's
incorrect to state none shall be listed. Other states already list kids, and
various interstate agreements require states to list them should they move.
Additionally, AWA requires the listing of kids--and state legislatures are often
thrilled to expand the list. And since it's now acceptable to pass retroactive
laws, the list of qualifying crimes could expand every (election) year.

But parents shouldn't worry. After all, the Supreme Court found the registry
wasn't at all punishment, and there was no proof it would lead to loss of home
or job, harrassment, vandalism, or murder. Anyone with knowledge to the contrary
should let the Court know of their error.

Re: Katie

April 5, 2008 3:55 p.m.

I understand your strong feelings about abusers of young children and I openly
admit that I cannot understand your personal pain from your experience.

Once an abuser is convicted, I even agree that prisons should be used and when
appropraite monitored through the probationary process. When appropriate, I
even agree that extended sentences should be used.

However, like you
I agree that there are some that don't need to be on the list and that is where
I have confidence in the judical system to determine if they need extended
monitoring using Adult Probation and Parole. As long as the courts believe they
should be monitored, then they should be registered and monitored.

However, once the courts have declaired that they are no longer a threat to
the community, then why should they be on the list and no longer monitored by
the system?

Re: Prosecuter

April 5, 2008 3:40 p.m.

I agree parents should spend their time working with their children instead of
on the phone, however, I would encourage them to speak out against the SOR.
Should a child find himself/herself suddenly and unexpexctedly guilty of a lack
of judgment which lands them in court and pleading guilty to a law that
heretofor was unknow them, I would hope that when that price has been paid and
the courts feel it is appropriate to remove them from court and probation
monitoring, that they could be removed the registery as well. I don't
understand why people are on the registery when parole offices and the courts
believe an individual is no longer a threat to the community.

Ernie Floyd McCootus Woo

April 5, 2008 3:01 p.m.

This crybaby thinks he has a right to prove he is not a sex predator. The rest
of us have the right to steer clear of this perv. Frankly, I don't care if he
ever kicks the habit of fondling children. I don't want to do business or rent
housing to this filthy animal.

CITIZEN

April 5, 2008 12:41 p.m.

To all sex offenders that prey on little children,"HANG EM HIGH"

a solution

April 5, 2008 11:24 a.m.

here is a solution. kids don't need cell phones i managed just fine through out
my school years with out one. if they must have one don't give them a phone with
camaras on it! if i was a school board i would order cell phone jamming devices
installed and turned on during school hours! if it is a real emergency parents
can call the kids through the school office. keep in mind i also had a girl who
sluffed class they day before and when teacher was gone she called the
attendance office pretending to be her mother and excused her absence! office
aid brought the note right to her. parents do you know what your kids do?

katie

April 5, 2008 9:36 a.m.

i don't think 18 and 19 year old boys who have sex with their underage
girlfriends belong on the registry, however, people who sexually abuse 9 year
old girls do. No question. It annoys me when these sex offenders feel like its
an injustice that they are on the sex registry, when they unjustly sexually
abused another person. Justice can never be completely served for that person. I
would know. I was abused as a child, and my offender was let off with no jail
time, no punishment at all. I feel like justice was not served, and even if he
had been sentenced and put on the registry for a few years, I would never feel
justice had been served because of what he took from me. And I know almost every
sexually abused person feels the same. The community has every right to know who
is a risk to society. That way one less person won't have to go through what 1
in 3 girls, and 1 in 5 boys go through. The numbers are way too high for sex
offences. And it's partly because justice is not being served. Keep those
perverts in prison.

they should

April 5, 2008 9:06 a.m.

Your children that take and distribute indecent pictures with their cell phones
are sex offenders and should be prosecuted and forced to register.

What ever

April 5, 2008 9:04 a.m.

I know what the laws say today but have you paid attention to the political
posture bills passed by our legislature. Who is to say that thy in the need for
more posturing is not going to take the topic of Sexual Abuse (most of them do
not understand it anyway) and demand that even minor misdemeanors need to be on
the database. With our current paranoia about the whole thing I would not put
it past them.

P.S. By the way the Juveniles may not make it on to
the Sex Abuse Registry but they can easily make into the State Licensing Data
Base via a supported finding from DCFS. This is a life long list.

Sarkis

April 5, 2008 7:24 a.m.

Are you kidding me? Register them as sex offenders, this is ridiculous. In
fact, it is ridiculous to even sue them in the first place.

Because
it is not "socially acceptable." What the hell does that matter, many things
aren't socially acceptable, these stupid lawyers.

Bob G

April 5, 2008 6:05 a.m.

These parents need to understand that sex offenders start early, in their youth
in puberty when sex becomes a biological force. Parents don't control their kids
or educate them on social behaviors and a few learning the hard way will educate
many more about proper social behavior. This will catch future sex offenders
early and keep them from commiting crimes as adults and preying on other
victims. If parents are getting concerned then they should think about taking
away the cell phones from their children. They have no real need for cell phones
anyway, its an expensive toy they abuse and misuse.

Prosecutor

April 5, 2008 5:53 a.m.

Lost in all the handwringing and bedwetting over deviant juveniles with cell
phones is this -- it is not up to the Utah Supreme Court to decide whether the
law should cover this form of deviance. Rather, that is the province of the
people, through the legislature. And that decision has been made.

In
an appropriate case, a predatory teen pervert with a cell phone camera could end
up in the sex offender registry. So maybe they should think twice before
acting.

Overwrought parents burning up the phone lines to prosecutors
could more profitably expend their efforts supervising their kids, rather than
browbeating prosecutors just doing the job the taxpayers pay them [so
cheerfully and so well] to do.

Get Serious, Please

April 5, 2008 2:57 a.m.

Dupaix claims that "we all know" taking dirty pictures with a cell is not a
serious offense. It seems like short slippery steps from taking lewd pictures of
oneself to passing around lewd pictures of others to taking lewd pictures of
classmates without their knowledge. The close quarters of school with shared
changing facilities etc would offer the budding deviants ample opportunity. As a
parent I am concerned with some legal authorities cavalier attitude toward
protecting other children from these juvenile predators.

Duh

April 5, 2008 2:48 a.m.

"The man, who served time for sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl, claims the sex
offender registry stigmatizes him as a sexual predator"

This is
because men who sexually abuse 9-year-old-girls ARE predators.

One
can only hope the justices catch that fine point.

why not

April 5, 2008 2:51 a.m.

As a parent, I would want to know that a person (potentially) dating my child
had taken and passed around lewd photos of minors

Juveniles ARE on rhe Registry

April 5, 2008 1:46 a.m.

I just did a random search in the Salt Lake area by zip code, and in at least
one area there is a 17 year old and several 19 year olds on the Registry. So the
statement that there are no juveniles on the Registry in not accurate. "2nd
degree assault with sexual motivation" is the offense listed for the 17 year
old. If I were a parent of the kids who have been taking inappropriate pictures
with their cell phones, I would be concerned, not only because what they have
done is just wrong, and not very smart, but because it could lead to more
serious behavior in the future. Then they would be on the Registry. The young
men who are Registered because they had sex with an underage girlfriend don't
belong on the Registry. They are not likely to be a threat to children, for
example. But being on the Registry sure makes it difficult to go forward with
your life, going to school, getting a job, even a house. Some people should be
Registered, but a lot who are on the Registry do not need to be there.